Abstract

The function of this paper is to present research findings that ordinarily would never see the light of day, not because they have no value or significance, but they might seem marginal and less significant given the main focus of the research conducted. When studying player experience, there is value in widening the focus of research to avoid attributing too much value to one kind of experience over others. The findings presented here come from a much larger three-year research study into player experiences with games containing violence. The broad intent of the study was to query the strong association between effects research and responsive regulation measures (game classification). The research was guided by the idea that exploring “the extent to which the public’s perception of causal links between game playing and various social ills’ might be ‘moderated or even undermined by [knowledge of] how players actually respond to and negotiate their way through the content and characteristics of the medium” (OFLC, 2009, p. 24). To do this, the research employed a mixed methodology to examine player experience (as introduced in Schott et al., 2013a). The study produced a number of data points in order to characterize the multi-dimensional nature of players’ experiences. This paper focuses specifically on the outcome of utilizing a biometric measure (GSR) as a guide for determining which aspects, from game experiences that required hours of game play, should be assessed for their significance. The value of employing GSR as a textually neutral method for detecting which aspects of a game had an impact on players is assessed.